The US Congress passed the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which allows Washington to deny visas and free the assets of Russian officials allegedly involved in the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.

Magnitsky was arrested on tax evasion charges in November 2008. He died in the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center in Moscow in November 2009 after nearly a year-long detention. His death sparked a massive public outcry. Later, US Senator Benjamin Cardin came up with the so-called "Magnitsky list" encompassing Russian officials allegedly involved in the case. In addition to Bastrykin, the new sanctions were imposed against Russian lawmaker Andrei Lugovoi, businessman Dmitry Kovtun, investigator Stanisalv Gordievsky and former bank manager Gennady Plaksin. The expansion of the Magnitsky Act added to a recent series of unfriendly gestures by Barack Obama’s administration towards Russia.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201701101049450315-us-sanctions-russia-comments/

This Saturday, on January 21, I'll be marking Donald Trump's first day in office by marching in Sydney to stand up against the hatred and bigotry he represents.

The Women's March on Washington was organised — predominantly on Facebook — for the day after inauguration day to protest against Mr Trump's politics and the threat he poses to the safety and autonomy of the politically vulnerable: women, religious minorities, racial minorities, LGBTI communities and people with disabilities.

read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-17/why-im-marching-against-donald-tru...

Sure... but did you consider marching against Obama selling weapons to the Saudis, weapons that have created far more distress in Yemen than in the street of Chicago? Far more distress than Donald could engenger to women around planet Earth and Venus in ten lifetimes? Or for having destroyed Libya? Or for having tried to destroy Syria? (yes I know we blame the Ruskies for this one, when Obama was squarely at the core of the "revolution")... Or marched against Obama for having been the only one who spent his entire presidency AT WAR — against anyone who did not bend the knees to the US juggernaut? Would you have marched against Hillary had she made the decision to bomb Damascus as advised by her supporters in the "elite" establishment?

 

Please march. March on and on... but please don't stop at Mr Trump... March even if you feet bleed...

 

 

WASHINGTON — James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, sharply defended his rationale for notifying Congress about new emails related to the Hillary Clinton investigation less than two weeks before Election Day, saying Wednesday that any suggestion he affected the vote’s outcome made him “mildly nauseous.”

Mr. Comey’s comments at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing were his first public explanation for his actions, which roiled the presidential campaign in its final days and cast a harsh spotlight on the F.B.I. director.

Mr. Comey said he went public on Oct. 28 because he believed that the emails found by his agents might provide insight into Mrs. Clinton’s reasons for using a private server as secretary of state and might change the outcome of the investigation. Failing to inform Congress, Mr. Comey said, would have a [sic] required an “act of concealment.”

“Concealment, in my view, would have been catastrophic,” he said, adding later that he knew the decision would be “disastrous for me personally.”

read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/james-comey-fbi-senate-hearing.html

 

Comey, the FBI, not the Russians influenced the result of the elections. The deed of failure was set when Hillary nominated for the presidency. see:

a-miss congeniality rewrites history...

 

US President Donald Trump has abruptly fired FBI director James Comey in a move Democrats have condemned as politically motivated.

The decision has surprised many, not least of which Mr Comey himself, with reports indicating the director was not aware he had been fired until the dismissal letter was sent to the press.

Here's how it all unfolded.

What was the reason?

In a letter to Mr Comey, Mr Trump said the firing was necessary to restore "public trust and confidence" in the FBI.

read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-10/here27s-how-the-sacking-of-the-fbi...

 

See toon at top....

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has accused the US administration of “political interference” for firing FBI Director James Comey while Julian Assange has invited the latter to work for WikiLeaks.

Comey was fired on Tuesday, days after he testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

READ MORE: Trump fires FBI Director James Comey

“Set aside politics: every American should condemn such political interference in the Bureau’s work,” Snowden tweeted.

Set aside politics: every American should condemn such political interference in the Bureau's work.https://t.co/hROwSMg1vd

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 9, 2017

Many view the sudden firing as being tied to Comey’s role in the Russia investigation, although Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Comey was fired over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server during her time as secretary of state.

@Snowden He was fired because he was protecting #CrookedHillary from prosecution & he & Loretta Lynch involved in conspiracy to destroy evidence

— Jason Burack (@JasonEBurack) May 9, 2017

@JasonEBurack@Snowden See, I would agree with this if Comey didn't come out with a letter about the email scandal about a week before the election

— Anthony (@sack_attack_) May 9, 2017

“This FBI Director has sought for years to jail me on account of my political activities,” Snowden tweeted. “If I can oppose his firing, so can you.”

This FBI Director has sought for years to jail me on account of my political activities. If I can oppose his firing, so can you. https://t.co/zUp5kquy8q

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 9, 2017

Meanwhile, Assange tweeted that: “WikiLeaks would be happy to consider hiring James Comey to help lead its DC office should he like to properly investigate the US government.”

WikiLeaks would be happy to consider hiring James Comey to help lead its DC office should he like to properly investigate the US government.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 9, 2017

Assange said an FBI source had claimed the Bureau would now “start leaking like Niagara.”

“But please, FBI friends, full docs or you know the press will spin it,” he added.

FBI source says the FBI will now start leaking leaking like Niagara. But please FBI friends full docs or you know the press will spin it!

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 9, 2017

“Comey's firing will be an extraordinary boon for transparency as his loyalists leak and the admin counter-leaks,”Assange tweeted. “Will he run for 2020?”

Comey's firing will be an extraordinary boon for transparency as his loyalists leak and the admin counter-leaks. Will he run for 2020?

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 9, 2017

Assange also drew his followers’ attention back to 1993, when President Bill Clinton fired FBI chief William S Sessions, after he refused to resign on recommendation of the attorney general. Sessions, who was accused of ethical violations, was the only other FBI head to be fired.

Mr. Comey knows where many bodies are buried. Working for WikiLeaks is fulfilling. James--don't become another lobbyist for Glock or Donkin.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) May 10, 2017

“Mr. Comey knows where many bodies are buried,” Assange tweeted. “Working for WikiLeaks is fulfilling. James – don't become another lobbyist for Glock or Donkin.”

READ MORE: ‘Constitutional crisis’: Trump’s firing of FBI director ignites Twitter frenzy

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/usa/387844-comey-assange-snowden-wikileaks/

 

see toon at top...

“Was he fired? You’re kidding!” Lavrov quipped, after NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell shouted a question about Comey at the photo-op with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. As he and Tillerson walked away, Lavrov shook his head.

This was not the first time Mitchell ran afoul of Lavrov. During Tillerson’s visit to Moscow in April, the NBC News chief foreign correspondent likewise shouted out a question before the diplomats had even sat down for a press conference, only to be berated by the Russian foreign minister for her lack of decorum.

“Who was bringing you up? Who was giving you your manners?” Lavrov asked, with the remarks making it into the official State Department transcript of the event.

Lavrov when asked by Andrea Mitchell about Comey firing wasn't making fun about Comey, he was making fun of Mitchell. Not 1st time. pic.twitter.com/h5kixm2LqZ

— Andrew Patti (@AndrewPatti3) May 10, 2017

Following his meetings with Tillerson and Trump, Lavrov held a press conference at the Russian embassy in Washington, at one moment sighing in exasperation at repeated questions from US reporters about alleged Russian “influencing” of US presidential elections.

“The trouble is, no one has ever presented a single fact or evidence” of alleged Russian intervention to anyone, Lavrov said, adding that the issue was not discussed in his meetings in Washington.

“I can’t believe I’m being asked to answer such a question, especially in the US, where you have a sophisticated democratic political system,” he added.

“And now we go to Alaska,” Moscow’s top diplomat quipped at the end of the press conference, referring to the Arctic Council ministerial meeting on Thursday.

Putin reacts to Comey firing: "We have nothing to do with that" https://t.co/bq0sLcCAzY

— Kandy Zabka (@Kkzahu) May 10, 2017

Putin himself laughed off a question about Comey’s firing, when asked by a CBS reporter as he prepared to play a game of hockey in the Russian resort city of Sochi.

“We have nothing to do with that,” he said through a translator, adding that the question “sounds very funny.”

@RT_compic.twitter.com/VEooRmA2Q5

— American

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., accused State Department officials last Friday of lying to the court in an affidavit concerning producing all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s work-related documents and emails.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth was also “shocked” and “dumbfounded” to learn this past summer that the Justice Department had given former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills immunity during its investigation into the then-2016 Democratic presidential nominee’s use of a private email server while she was head of the State Department.

Fox News reported that in 2014 the government transparency group Judicial Watch sued the State Department after it did not respond to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking information related to the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

 

Read more:

https://www.westernjournal.com/shocked-federal-judge-state-dept-signed-c...

 

Read from top.

New documents obtained by Judicial Watch and the bombshell interview with former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe have shed new light on a double standard approach towards Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on the part of high-ranking FBI officials, Wall Street analyst Сharles Ortel told Sputnik.

"The FBI must be run outside of partisan political considerations — yet, examination of FBI conduct tied to questionable and deeply suspicious activities of the Clintons suggests a two tier approach", says Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel, commenting on the Judicial Watch's release of the Clinton emailgate documents.

On 11 February, Judicial Watch (JW), a conservative watchdog group, signalled that it had received 215 pages of records from the US Department of Justice.

The documents indicated that former FBI General Counsel James Baker had discussed the federal agency's Clinton email investigation with Hillary Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall. The Baker-Kendall email exchange followed then FBI chief James Comey's 28 October 2016 announcement of the discovery of new emails on a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the husband of the Clinton campaign's then vice president, Huma Abedin. Kendall reached out to Baker and lashed out at the FBI for its "tantalizingly ambiguous" statement.

"It is big news that, just days before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton's personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails", stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

 

Earlier, Fox News turned the spotlight on Baker's testimony, which said that the former FBI general counsel had personally taken part in securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on then Donald Trump aide Carter Page. Baker admitted that the practice was "unusual".

The records obtained by JW also shed light on the apparent "quid pro quo" deal offered by the Obama administration. Former FBI attorney Lisa Page wrote on 13 October 2016 that US State Department officials had offered the FBI more legal attaché positions "if it would downgrade a redaction in an email found during the Hillary Clinton email investigation 'from classified to something else'".

​"The most significant set of issues I see from the latest JW release is that certain persons may have been acting on behalf of unknown interests to limit the potential damage of an FBI investigation by offering the FBI perceived benefits (additional foreign locations for FBI staff) if the FBI agreed to downgrade the status of certain emails found on the Weiner laptop", Ortel said commenting on the issue.

He highlighted that the latest trove of documents released by JW should be examined in the context of:

1)      FBI Vault files on potential mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton;

2)      An FBI memo released on 3 October 2016 and saying that some 340,000 emails on the Weiner laptop contained "a significant number of emails between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton";

3)      A warrant obtained 30 October 2016 to search the contents of the Weiner/Abedin laptop;

4)      And, finally, US political commentator Paul Sperry's findings showing that the FBI may have only reviewed 3,077 out of hundreds of thousands of the aforementioned email

"What makes these revelations particularly significant is that they appear to have occurred in the heat and final moments of the 2016 general election campaign", Ortel stressed, echoing Fitton.

 

Citing the apparent "quid pro quo deal" between the FBI and the State Department concerning the Clinton email case, the Wall Street analyst assumed that it could be potentially be subject to three statutes, namely, 18 USC § 1510, Obstruction of a criminal Investigation; 18 USC § 1505, Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committee; and 18 USC § 1519, Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations or bankruptcy.

McCabe: 25th Amendment and Rosenstein's Wire

Meanwhile, Andrew McCabe, the former acting FBI director, revealed in his interview on CBS' 60 Minutes that after ex-FBI James Comey's resignation, top administration officials seriously discussed Donald Trump's ouster, according to CBS' Scott Pelley, who shared excerpts from the conversation on 14 February.

In particular, McCabe described the meeting at the Justice Department that discussed "whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president under the 25th Amendment".

Furthermore, the journalist noted that "it was also said at a previous time that the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, offered to wear a wire into the White House to record potentially incriminating conversations with the president".

 

According to Pelley, this issue was discussed "more than once and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it."

In September 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued a statement saying that he "never pursued or authorized recording the President, and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false".

The McCabe interview prompted a storm of criticism from US President Donald Trump, who tweeted: "Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a ‘poor little Angel' when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax — a puppet for Leakin' James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of ‘insurance policy' in case I won".

According to Ortel, the thickening plot requires a thorough examination of all facts of apparent collusion between Obama administration officials, the FBI and the "Clinton camp".

​"The timeline as Donald Trump surged to become the presumptive Republican nominee while concerns mounted about Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and regarding possible corruption, charity fraud, and money laundering via Clinton 'charities' needs to be fleshed out using the full resources of the FBI and other relevant investigative agencies, ideally as one or more grand juries are empaneled", the Wall Street analyst emphasised.

The views and opinions expressed by the speaker and the contributor do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201902151072466286-clinton-fbi-mccabe-t...

 

 

Read from top.

 

 

The former head of the FBI said he thinks "it's time for more women to be leaders in this country", and that he hopes that "more women get elected to office".

Former FBI Director James Comey has addressed an apparent viral jab delivered to him on Twitter by ex-Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton earlier this week.

After Comey tweeted a picture of himself wearing an “Elect More Women” t-shirt, accompanied by a caption saying that “we need more women in office”, Hillary replied with a GIF of herself smirking, with The Hill describing it as a reference to the former FBI head announcing "new developments in the investigation of her private email server” one week prior to the 2016 election which Clinton ended up losing.

And when CBS’ Margaret Brennan pointed out to Comey during his recent appearance on "Face the Nation" that Hillary Clinton "said in the past that she thought she was on the verge of winning in 2016" until the reopening of her email investigation, and asked him whether he thus sees his tweet as contradictory or if he regrets "what happened then”, the latter responded that he gets why Clinton would "send something like that".

"She's better at Twitter than I am. But I regret only being involved in the 2016 election. We were stuck, and I think we made the right decisions choosing between terrible options”, he said. “And so I wasn't trying, nor was anybody else in the FBI trying to elect or not elect anyone. And I hope more women get elected to office".

​He also added that he hopes "more women get elected to office", and that he thinks "it's time for more women to be leaders in this country".

A number of social media users did not seem to appreciate what Comey had to say, berating him over his actions that allegedly affected the aforementioned election and urging him to admit making a "mistake".

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/viral/202008231080256355-james-comey-says-he-regrets-being-involved-in-2016-election-after-being-mocked-by-hillary-online/

 

Read from top. See also: running parties... 

COMEY TALKS SHIT:

Comey said Clinton’s use of a private email server to handle sensitive information was nothing like the case brought against Trump, who is facing 37 felony counts relating to his hoarding of classified documents, including some containing information on nuclear capabilities.

“It’s so readily distinguishable that anyone who can’t readily distinguish it is not interested in doing it and there are many of those in the States,” Comey told an event hosted by the How To Academy at London’s Conduit Club in Covent Garden on Tuesday.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/former-fbi-boss-james-comey-says-donald-trump-is-in-big-trouble-20230613-p5dgby.html

 

"Everyone knows the DNC servers were hacked by Russia, and we know because the FBI said so". Except that the FBI never actually examined the servers themselves, relying instead on Crowdstrike, a private company hired by — get this — the Clinton campaign. And while the FBI insisted that they requested access to the servers, Clinton staffers Michael Sussman and Shawn Henry insisted no such request was ever made.

Jimmy [DORE] and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger talk to The Grayzone journalist Aaron Maté about the parade of lies that have surrounded the DNC server investigation from the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPeEODS9Xh8

 

MEANWHILE, IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THE LEAKER FROM THE DNC HAS BEEN MURDERED... 

AS MY FRIEND RONALD SMITH SAYS:

IN AMERICA, IT IS EASIER TO COMMIT A POLITICAL ASSASSINATION THAN IN RUSSIA, DUE TO THE NUMBER OF MURDERS DAILY…

 

WE HAVE A FEW CLUES AS TO WHO DIED....

 

SEE ALSO:

gone fishin'...

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

NOW YOU CAN GUESS WHY THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO GET RID OF ASSANGE FAR MORE THAN SILLY TRUMP....

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Special Counsel John Durham did not pursue the suspect allegation that the Russians hacked the DNC, despite new evidence of perjury by Clinton figure Shawn Henry of CrowdStrike and Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann -- shown, top and bottom.

 

By Aaron Maté, RealClearInvestigations
June 6, 2023

Special Counsel John Durham’s final report faults the FBI for opening the Trump-Russia collusion investigation on baseless grounds and relying on Hillary Clinton-funded material to pursue it, all while ignoring a warning that Clinton was plotting to frame Trump as a Russian asset. Yet Durham does not address the Clinton campaign’s equally central tie to Russiagate’s other foundational allegation: that Russia interfered in the 2016 election by hacking Democratic party servers and releasing the material through Wikileaks to help elect Trump.

 

Durham’s silence on the Clinton team’s role in generating this unproven claim comes despite his unearthing of evidence that newly calls it into question.

 

Material obtained by Durham’s team shows that the Clinton campaign and its contractor, the cyber-firm CrowdStrike, stonewalled the FBI’s requests for critical data about the alleged Russian hack. Two key Clinton associates who were integral to the Russian hacking claim also appear to have perjured themselves before Congress.

RealClearInvestigations has pieced together these overlooked revelations through court documents connected to Durham’s probe, particularly his unsuccessful prosecution of Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann on a separate perjury charge.

In April 2016, Sussmann hired CrowdStrike to investigate the alleged hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). In mid-June ‒ just as Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS were producing their first Clinton-funded dossier report alleging a Trump-Russia conspiracy ‒ Clinton-funded CrowdStrike came forward to publicly accuse Russia of hacking the Democrats’ computer networks. Sussmann, who worked closely with the firm, lobbied the FBI to endorse the allegation. The FBI initially declined, but reversed course months later despite failing to examine the DNC/DCCC servers. Instead, much like its use of Steele’s dossier for surveillance warrants and investigative leads when it came to collusion, the FBI relied on CrowdStrike’s forensics and redacted reports.

 

The FBI’s dependency on CrowdStrike – and, indeed, the entire basis for the Russiagate probe ‒ was further called into question when it emerged that the firm’s president had admitted under oath that it “did not have concrete evidence” of Russian hacking. Shawn Henry, a former close FBI colleague of Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, made the disclosure to Congress in December 2017. Yet his testimony was kept secret throughout the entirety of the FBI’s Comey- and Mueller-overseen Russia probes, and only became public in May 2020.

Exhibits released by Durham in Sussmann’s case expose a new problem for CrowdStrike and its client the Clinton campaign: In recounting their roles in the FBI’s Russian hacking probe in congressional testimony, Sussmann and Henry gave identical false statements.

FBI Officials Contradicted

When they appeared before the House Intelligence Committee in December 2017, both Sussmann and Henry claimed that the FBI did not try to conduct its own independent, onsite investigation of the Democratic Party servers. The pair’s account contradicted FBI officials, including Comey, who have said that they requested access but were denied.

Asked directly if the FBI sought access to the servers, Sussmann replied: “No, they did not.” He then added a caveat: “Excuse me, not to my knowledge.” The FBI, Sussmann added, “would have” had access “if they wanted it ... But it wasn't something that they were interested in at the time.”

CrowdStrike’s Henry also told the committee that he was “not aware” of the FBI ever asking for access to the servers or being denied it. Asked directly if he was ever told that the FBI  “required access to the servers,” Henry said: “I have no recollection of them saying that to me or anybody on my team, no.”

Henry and Sussmann’s accounts are not only at direct odds with the FBI, but with their own emails that Durham obtained.

In October 2016, these emails show, the FBI directly asked Sussmann if the bureau could come onsite to inspect and copy the servers. Sussmann relayed that request to Henry and other CrowdStrike executives – who promptly stonewalled it.

In an October 13, 2016 exchange, Elvis Chan, a special agent in the FBI’s San Francisco office, asked Sussmann if the “DNC/DCCC would be amenable to letting FBI computer forensics personnel onsite to conduct the imaging” of the servers. “In theory, sure,” Sussmann replied, adding that he would “put you directly in touch with CrowdStrike.”

Contradicting what he would tell Congress the following year, Sussmann informed Henry and others at CrowdStrike that the FBI is “asking whether FBI computer forensics personnel can come ‘onsite’ to conduct the imaging.” Sussmann added that he was “connecting CrowdStrike and the Bureau to discuss directly on this email chain.”

In response, CrowdStrike executive Justin Weissert did not address the FBI’s request for onsite access. Weissert instead introduced a new proposal: CrowdStrike would send the FBI a copy of the firm’s imaging of the servers.

“As we just discussed under a separate email thread, CrowdStrike wants to assist with this effort and, given the nature of the past activities and our commitment to supporting our friends at the FBI, we’re going to move ahead with providing the information at no additional expense to anyone,” Weissert wrote.

Rather than remind CrowdStrike that he had asked if FBI cyber experts could come “onsite to conduct the imaging,” Chan accepted the offer and provided a mailing address. “FBI San Francisco greatly appreciates your help,” he wrote.

Given that Sussmann personally received the FBI’s request and relayed it to CrowdStrike, his erroneous recollection is especially suspect.

Asked about their false statements to Congress, Sussmann and Henry did not respond to RCI’s questions by the time of publication. CrowdStrike also did not respond to a request for comment. 

A Missed Opportunity

In failing to address this episode, Durham missed an opportunity to press Sussmann and Henry on why they denied the FBI access to the DNC servers – and whether their false statements to Congress amounted to a criminal offense. By contrast, the Mueller team aggressively prosecuted four Trump associates for alleged false statements, including two cases – Roger Stone and Michael Cohen – for perjury before Congress.

The Durham materials also reveal that the FBI’s failure to examine the DNC servers was not its only rebuffed request. Emails obtained by Durham show that CrowdStrike and the Clinton campaign ignored what the FBI listed as its number one “Priority Requests”: “Un-redacted copies of CrowdStrike reports” on both the DNC and DCCC “incidents.” That request, also made to Sussmann, came in a September 30, 2016, email from FBI Special Agent E. Adrian Hawkins.

The FBI never got what it wanted. In a May 2019 court filing, the Justice Department disclosed that the U.S. government “does not possess” CrowdStrike's unredacted originals, and that Sussmann only provided “three draft reports” in redacted form.

In Senate testimony, James Trainor, then-assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division, recalled that he was "frustrated" with the CrowdStrike report he received in late August 2016 and "doubted its completeness" because Sussmann had “scrubbed” it. According to Trainor, the DNC's cooperation in the hacking probe was "moderate" overall and "slow and laborious in many respects.”

CrowdStrike’s redacted reports were provided to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, but have not been publicly released. The FBI has denied RCI’s Freedom of Information Act requests for the CrowdStrike reports, releasing only the documents’ cover pages.

Changing the FBI's Messaging

Other emails released by Durham in Sussmann’s case show that the Clinton lawyer personally reviewed and edited an FBI public statement on the alleged hack of the DNC.

On July 29, 2016 – just one week after WikiLeaks released a trove of embarrassing Democratic Party emails – the FBI drafted a press release on what it called “a possible cyber intrusion involving the DCCC.” Trainor contacted Sussmann for input.

“A draft response is provided below,” Trainor wrote. “Wanted to get your thoughts on this prior to sending out.”

In response, Sussmann took exception with the FBI’s mention of a “possible” hack. This qualifier, he noted, contradicted the Clinton campaign’s messaging on a Russian intrusion.

“The draft you sent says only that the FBI is aware of media reports; it does not say that the FBI is aware of the intrusion that the DCCC reported,” Sussmann wrote. “Indeed, it refers only to a ‘possible’ cyber intrusion and in that way undermines what the DCCC said in its statement (or at least calls into question what the DCCC said).”

Accordingly, Sussmann suggested new language that removed the FBI’s caveat of a “possible” hack. Trainor accepted the Clinton lawyer’s edit. “I am fine with the below suggestions,” he wrote.

The FBI’s failure to obtain both direct access to the DNC servers and unredacted copies of the CrowdStrike reports further calls into question U.S. intelligence officials’ claim that Russia hacked the DNC.

On October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued a joint statement claiming, for the first time, that the “U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails” from the Democratic Party. Jeh Johnson, who then served as DHS secretary, later testified that President Obama “approved the statement” and “wanted us to make [it].”

Yet as Durham’s Sussmann-FBI emails confirm, this Obama-approved claim was released one week before CrowdStrike denied the FBI’s request for an “onsite” inspection. This timing means that when the intelligence community made its first public attribution of Russian hacking, it had not only failed to inspect the servers, but had not even received CrowdStrike’s copies of them.

When the FBI and DHS released a more detailed report two months later, the document described the alleged Russian hacking effort as "likely leading to the exfiltration of information" from Democratic Party networks. (Emphasis added.)

The Mueller probe, having also relied on CrowdStrike’s forensics, failed to add any more certainty. Mueller’s final report of April 2019 likewise stated that Russian intelligence "appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments" from Democratic Party servers. (Emphasis added.)

Read in retrospect, these qualifiers – "likely" and "appear" ‒ signaled that U.S. intelligence lacked concrete evidence for their Russian hacking claims, given that CrowdStrike and the Clinton campaign had denied the FBI full access to the digital crime scene. The material emerging from Durham’s probe newly confirms this significant evidentiary hole.

Durham’s decision to ignore the FBI’s deference to Clinton-funded CrowdStrike is all the more striking given his criticism of the FBI’s extensive use of Clinton-funded sources in its hunt for collusion.

The FBI, the Durham report notes, relied on a “significant quantity of materials ... that originated with and/or were funded by the Clinton campaign or affiliated persons.” Accordingly, Durham concluded, the FBI should have considered whether the Clinton camp was feeding it false claims as “part of a political effort to smear a political opponent” and exploit “the federal government's law enforcement and intelligence agencies in support” of that goal.

For unexplained reasons, Durham did not apply this critique to the FBI’s reliance on Clinton-funded sources to probe the theft of Democratic Party emails. As a result, seven years to the month after CrowdStrike triggered the Russiagate saga, the U.S. public remains in the dark about whether the Russian hacking allegation was yet one more deception funded by the Clinton campaign and parroted by the FBI.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/06/06/what_durham_skipped_903673.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

SEE COMMENT ABOVE: joining dots.....

 

AS JIMMY DORE SAYS, THE DONOR CLASS OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE DO NOT WANT TO INVESTIGATE THIS INTERNATIONAL DANGEROUS SCANDAL BECAUSE THE DONORS, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, ARE IN COHOOT WITH THE DEEP STATE (CIA/FBI/PENTAGON) AND HATE TRUMP. THIS IS WHY TRUMP IS BEING INDICTED AND THIS IS WHY THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA WANT TO GET RID OF TRUMP, WHICHEVER FAKE COURT CASE OR EMPEACHMENT.

IMAGINE, EVERY TIME THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA, THE MSM, MENTIONS THE "TOP SECRET" DOSSIERS THAT "WERE FOUND" AT TRUMP'S ABODE, THE MEDIA SHOWS US CARDBOARD BOXES UPON CARDBOARD BOXES IN A BATHROOM, NEXT TO THE TOILET, AS IF 37 DOCUMENTS OF A FEW PAGES LONG WOULD REQUIRE SO MUCH STORAGE... AS TRUMP SAID, THESE BOXES WERE FULL OF OLD CLOTHES AND SHOES AND OTHER STUFF.

37 DOCUMENTS WOULD HARDLY FILL A QUARTER OF A FILING CABINET DRAWER. 

OF COURSE SOMEONE IN TRUMP HOUSEHOLD SQUEALED ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH BY THE TIME THEY WERE "FOUND" WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SECRET ANYMORE. — 99.999 PER CENT OF THE INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN OBSOLETE.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.